If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

First of all, there is no scientific difference between microevolution, which is apparent throughout science (including our own activities in developing specialized breeds of dogs) and macroevolution other than that macroevolution occurs over very extended periods of time (thousands of years). Creationists began focusing on macroevolution only when forced to accept the overwhelming evidence of evolution over shorter periods of time.

It always amazes me that creationists focus on using pseudoscience in an effort to throw doubt on the existence of evolution while accepting second and third hand accounts of "historic" events as true despite their fantastical nature and the absence of concrete proof. For example, when was the last time you saw a person arise after being dead for three days?

All discussions of original cause lead to infinite circles. On one had, if you accept the notion of the Big Bang, how do you explain the masses that had to be there for it to happen? On the other, if you accept the notion of God the Creator, what created God? When you follow the evidence back as far as you can, you will inevitably be left with new questions. That is simply reality, not evidence, and not proof of anything.

Personally, I think it's all "miraculous" and amazing whether there is a God or not. In fact, I think the question of whether there is a God or not to be the most irrelevant question since it gives us the illusion of an answer without actually explaining anything. If there is in fact a God capable of creating the subtle and miraculous universe in which we live, I simply cannot believe that such an entitiy would be driven by the petty jealous motivations of which he is accused by so many religions, or that he would want us to adopt such a static notion of reality that we would fail to explore all the miracles around us.

I would ask that you post any links or information you have showing conclusively that macro-evolution is or has ever occured...not just theories.

.

KF,

If that's a rhetorical question/request, I can't help but would offer that macroevolution does not lend itself to expirements carried out in labs. It has occured over millions of years, and nobody was interested in documenting as we went along. I don't mean to be sarcastic, but it's just not possible to have nice, packaged results in all realms of science. Let me be a little more sarcastic to prove a point if I may....I cannot link you to a randomized, double-blinded study that proves getting kicked in the groin hurts....but we all know it does!

If your request is a quest for understanding, I highly recommend going to the source....Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species". It is very eloquently written, and although somewhat long-winded, explains itself very methodically. If not that, check any Biology 101 textbook from any accredited university biology course.

Personally, I think it's all "miraculous" and amazing whether there is a God or not. In fact, I think the question of whether there is a God or not to be the most irrelevant question since it gives us the illusion of an answer without actually explaining anything. If there is in fact a God capable of creating the subtle and miraculous universe in which we live, I simply cannot believe that such an entitiy would be driven by the petty jealous motivations of which he is accused by so many religions, or that he would want us to adopt such a static notion of reality that we would fail to explore all the miracles around us.

That may be the most succinct summary of such a huge issue I've ever heard! Beautifully stated!

I've always wondered why creationists feel threatened and attack evolution, as where evolutionists are very non-threatened, and in fact often embrace some form of religious component to the whole thing? Long ago, I've learned to accept both, being a believer in God and a Creator, yet not willing to discard observations of the natural world we all enjoy.

Personally, I think it's all "miraculous" and amazing whether there is a God or not. In fact, I think the question of whether there is a God or not to be the most irrelevant question since it gives us the illusion of an answer without actually explaining anything. If there is in fact a God capable of creating the subtle and miraculous universe in which we live, I simply cannot believe that such an entitiy would be driven by the petty jealous motivations of which he is accused by so many religions, or that he would want us to adopt such a static notion of reality that we would fail to explore all the miracles around us.

First of all, there is no scientific difference between microevolution, and macroevolution other than that macroevolution

Creationists, myself included, do not argue about micro-evolution and adaptation. To say there is no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is simply not the truth.

What I want, Jeff, is for you, Darwin, or any evolutionist to point to one case whereby macro-evolution, that is where one species or substance has evolved to a higher atomically different species or substance, has occured.

There is no proof...only blind speculation. Most of the leading evolutionists admit that fact. That is why there is so much effort in trying to discover the missing link. However, there is no missing link because evolution is a farse and sadly a majority have bought into the lie.

I know you guys love Darwin so I will depart with this (I have to go do water work...my labs are simply not evolving in to trained dogs...I must actually train them) :

“You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas.” | Charles Darwin, 1858, in a letter to a colleague regarding the concluding chapters of his Origin of Species. As quoted in 'John Lofton's Journal', The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.

“For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible.” | Charles Darwin, 1859, Introduction to Origin of Species, p. 2. Also quoted in 'John Lofton's Journal', The Washington Times, 8 February 1984

“Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to my reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered...” | Charles Darwin, (ed. J. W. Burrow), The Origin of Species (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1974.), p. 205.

“When we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change.” | Charles Darwin, 1863.

“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” | Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st Ed., p. 186.

“A man who has no assured and ever-present belief in the existence of a personal God, or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.”| Charles Darwin, The Morality of Evolution, Autobiography, Norton, p. 94, 1958

Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us. (Jeremiah 2:27 KJV)

and the writer of Hebrews:

3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. (Hebrews 11:3 KJV)

.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1 NKJV)... 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4NKJV)

What I want, Jeff, is for you, Darwin, or any evolutionist to point to one case whereby macro-evolution, that is where one species or substance has evolved to a higher atomically different species or substance, has occured.

There's three. But it misses the point. Your're holding scientists to a MUCH higher standard than yourselves. Show me one non-photoshopped photograph of Noah's Ark with black, yellow, and chocolate labs with webbed feet on it. Oh, they didn't have cameras then?? Well, there's weren't taxonomists then either. Do you really think Noah could have kept 6 labs on board without jumping overboard that whole time?

I've had this discussion many times with friends. I ask:

1) do you believe that parents tend to pass traits on to thier children: hair color, size, looks, habitus, etc...?

2) do you believe that these traits are variable to some degree? ie, we're not clones of our parents?

3) could some of these traits give some a survival advantage ove others of his same species? ie can run faster, see better, reach fruit easier?

4) return to question #1, and repeat many, many times over many generations

There, none of those assumptions are contradictory to God's will, in fact they exemplify the miracle of birth. When put together and carried on through time, that's all evolution is. Why is that so threatening?? Could some anti-evolutionist please tell me which of the above statements is unbelievable?

Almost everyone agrees that species change over time. The part of the evolution theory that is argued is that there really is no evidence that a dinosaur evolved into a whale or that an ameoba turned into a human over time. Evolution with species, yes. Evolving from one species to another, no.

Just because two things have like characteristics does not mean they were once the same animal.

Some people dream of success, while others wake up and work hard for it.

"Five in the hole is better then 250 circling overhead." - Jase Robertson

"The part of the evolution theory that is argued is that there really is no evidence that a dinosaur evolved into a whale or that an ameoba turned into a human over time. Evolution with species, yes."

A partial convert? You're essentially saying you believe in short term evolution, but not long term. They're exactly the same, just a different time scale. I would politely disagree with your assumption that only speciation is argued. I've heard many argue that what came off Noah's boat, is what we got today. No exceptions.

I'm wondering, did you find any of the four statements unbelievable or improbable?